ArticleeLife2023
Article in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Artificial Intelligence in Veterinary Peer Review: Advancing Rigor or Raising New Concerns?Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Large Language Models for Peer Review in Transplantation Research: Algorithm Validation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Gender and disciplinary differences in grant proposal peer review: Content and sentiment in 39,280 reports.PloS one · 2026Article
- AI in peer review: can artificial intelligence be an ally in reducing gender and geographical gaps in peer review? A randomized trial.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Association of Double-Blind Reviews With Increases in Women as First Authors: An Initial Report From the Journal of Cardiac Failure.Journal of cardiac failure · 2025Article
- Use of ChatGPT to Explore Gender and Geographic Disparities in Scientific Peer Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Black Robes and White Coats: Daubert Standard and Medical and Legal Considerations for Medical Expert Witnesses.Cureus · 2024Review
- How to be an effective ally.Journal of cellular physiology · 2024Review
- Generative artificial intelligence is infiltrating peer review process.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The peer review process is a critical step in ensuring the quality of scientific research. However, its subjectivity has raised concerns. To investigate this issue, I examined over 500 publicly available peer review reports from 200 published neuroscience papers in 2022-2023. OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.